Related coverage

Thank goodness Australia won. And I’m not saying that because If not, this country would lose interest in the World Cup and have a ‘rugby reccession’. Although that would have happened.

I’m saying that because I can now safely say that Bryce Lawrence’s refereeing at the breakdown was incompetent, without coming across as a bitter rugby tragic.

As Lawrence reffed matches tend to go, there was just the one try. In fact, that has me amazed, how can a side with 75% territory and something like 90% of the ball not score a try?

Which do you think is more useless, the Springbok attack or Lawrences breakdown refereeing? (Leave ‘bokkes’ or ‘Lawrence’ at the bottom of your comment.)

It took 19 minutes for the first penalty, and there were very few penalties in the first half, slightly more in the second.

Very few penalties you say? isn’t that meant to be a good thing in rugby?

No. Because the breakdown was reduced to a farce. I could rant and rave about my point being proven and analyse why the Springboks lost.

However, after reading all the match reports, I believe the reason the Boks lost was because of this, and I quote the telegraph in the UK:

“The South Africans thought that the tackler would have to release the ball carrier. They thought that the offside line would be respected.

They thought that men would have to stay on the feet. Instead it was a complete shambles.”

There you have it folks. South Africa honestly thought that Bryce would actually penalize all those infringements! How silly of them. Much has been made of Australia’s failure to play to refs this year, they certainly did it today. If South Africa were smart, they should have known Bryce would never penalize those infringements for either side.

The Crowd Says (150)

The Boks attack is not great but Lawrence was appalling. He was too afraid to referee the breakdown. In many respects the match was reminiscent of the ABs v France quater final 4 years ago — one side taking their chances better (with the ball and with he ref), one side losing influential players (Brussow – Carter & Evans), a team absolutely domianting possession but not converting that, partly due to their own ineptitude, partly due to a referee who let it become a school yard free for all at the breakdown.

Actually it reminded me of the 1995 RWC final between SA and the (Suzy poisoned) All Blacks. SA put in a great defensive effort to win that one against an obviously superior team using similar kicking tactics to those used by Australia yesterday.

SA claimed that win in 1995, so they can hardly complain about losing to the Wallabies this time around..

Suzy poisoning is definitely arguable – what happened on saturday was as clear as day and in front of everyone – not so arguable. Clearly unfair and unjust. Poor reffing and the Springboks should feel robbed.

How are the 2 games even similar. Suzy poisoning is an excuse for losing, you can’t even compare.

And I think the only reason that the contest was a “lottery” (if it could be so called) is that you had two very fine teams that were not prepared to give up anything on the guts and commitment stakes, and applied maximum pressure to each other.

The boks’ attack tended to be focussed on taking the ball up hard and battering through. Their plan allowed little room for their backs to be creative. In retrospect, maybe they should have used their backs more; but then again, if they had done that, they might well have played into Australia’s hands. As it was, the Australian backs received very little ball and when they did get it, the pressure showed (and no, it wasn’t just Cooper, Genia and others also had big problems).

Four years ago, it would probably have worked. On another night it might well have worked. But the Australian forwards are proving to be as good at taking the hits and dishing them out as are the Boks. We lacked our best scrummager, but our scrum held on, and more importantly in the breakdown we were there and dishing it out as well as copping it. With an ageing (albeit skilled and tough) pack, missing bakkies and losing heinrich early on, the boks just didn’t have quite enough firepower to do it.

Amazing to watch though.

I am impressed with the number of non-rugby fans that I talk to this week who tuned in and thought it was tremendously entertaining.

I cannot for the life of me understand how Australia can feel proud after a “win” like that! Have some pride. You had the ref in your pocket because he felt bad about the Ireland game.

We will support our Boks when they come home, as if they won, because for all good and purposes, they did. Even when the Aus supporters boo-ed our players afterward, they kept their heads up. Bryce Lawrence should have been man of the match for your team.

Rubbish Will. The Irish beat you fair and square. If you want a culprit in that match look no further than Alexander – completely exposed – and Robbie Deans, who clearly allowed his coaching staff to do zero research on Ireland.

Although I have to say that the Boks have had a lot of difficulty this tournament converting pressure into points, there were any number of incidents that where infringements directly in front of Bryce Lawrence were blatantly ignored, calling the Maul consistently in favour of the Aussies regardless of how they played it … collapsing the mauls intentionally and getting away with it, but the Boks couldn’t even bind onto a maul without getting blown. the number times the Aussies affected the turn over from clearly illegal play from the ground when the Boks were being blown when they even looked at the rucks … it was appalling to watch, and I, for one, am highly embarrassed, just goes to show that no matter how good you are you can’t beat the ref! bokkes

The difference which is what is causing controvesy here is that the Wallabies should of been penalised at least double the 6 they got. 55 minutes played in the Wallabies 22, 147 tackles to 50 and yet the ball consistantly shot out of the ruck illegally into a wallaby hand on the try line with 5 springboks guarding the rucks.. not only is it illegal but its a yellow card offense. Pocock is the best fetcher in the game but he is not superhuman that he shoot a ball 2 meters out of rucks guarded by 5 forwards without cheating!

What makes this whole thing worse is bryce publically admitted to being harsh on Australia in the pool matches where he penalised the Wallabies 33 times, allot of his calls were wrong in the Ireland V Aus match. How can Paddy O’Brian choose him to offciate this match where clearly there is history with Bryce and Aus. What a way to make amends for his previous c0ck ups! I accept that South Africa should of taken more points through tries however it shouldnt of been required when if bryce played to the laws of the game Aus would of lost by 15 points on clear penalities in the red zone alone!

Disgracful performance by a ref not fit to offciate at this level and yes his poor officaiting was directed towards one team not both. Even that last penalty was harsh. It also screams of corruption when a Kiwi official(POB) puts in a Kiwi ref to manage the match of which the winner will play his country in the semi final!

The Boks did very well out of Lawrence’s loose policing of the breakdown – that’s the reason they were camped in Australia’s territory for so long. When is the last time that the Boks were able to pressure Australia like that? Certainly not in the last two years.

There is no point in taking advantage of a referees looseness to get into opposition territory, and then complaining about that looseness when it doesn’t work for you.

You might also acknowledge that some infringements missed by Lawrence probably cost Australia points, in particular the cutting down of Ioane when chasing his kick and the failure to give O’Connor a second shot at conversion.

Watchin as an outsider from Canada. Don’t see much rugby up here but as far as i know the interpretations of the rules of the game were almost completely ignored, in particular with respect to the breakdown. It was a free for all! Killed any opportunity for quick ball. Thought the irb is tryin to make rugby more entertaining by enforcing rules that favor attacking play??